~

GARY P. OSWALD. ESQ. SB#52682
LAW OFFICES OF GARY P. OSWALD 100 Tamal Plaza. Suite 140 Corte Madera. California 94925

Telephone: (415)927-5700
Facsimile: (415)927-5705
4

§fP*§ED „
BY:
DeDuuTrvT-r--

Attorney for Plaintiffs,
LEONID GONCHAROV

^09201?

5

and, MOHAMMED EDDINE
6
7

Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

8

9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

11

12

13

LEONID GONCFIAROV, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, MOHAMMED EDDINE,

CaseNo CGC-12-526Q17
CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

14

15

Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

ACT (Business and Professions Code

16
vs.

§17200, etseq.); INTERFERENCE WITH
BUSINESS RELATIONS; ACCOUNTING; DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
18

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

19

20

Defendants.

21

22

23

Plaintiffs allege:
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

24

1.
25 26

Plaintiffs, Leonid Goncharov and Mohammed Eddine, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated, are duly licensed and permitted taxicab drivers,

who are bringing this action to stop Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter
27

''Uber"), from continuing to act illegally in the City and County of San Francisco, by
28

"partnering" with unauthorized and unpermitted drivers to unlawfully compete with law

Class Action Complaint

~

abiding taxicab drivers. In fact, Uber is acting as a taxicab company while sometimes
denying this fact in order to avoid all regulations governing taxicab companies. 2.
3

Uber unfairly competes with Plaintiff Class (hereinafter "Plaintiffs" or

"Plaintiff Class"), by openly rejecting any notion of compliance with the rules governing
4

taxicab services in the City and County of San Francisco (sometimes hereinafter "the
5

City"). Uber expressly violates the rules governing taxicab services by, among other
6

things, dispatching limousines or "Black Cars," which are not licensed to act as taxicabs,
7

in the City, using illegal metering devices, encouraging its "partner" limousine drivers to
8

violate the law, and by charging unauthorized rates for its services.
9

3.
10
11

Uber's management has been openly critical of any regulation in general.

Uber s CEO Travis Kalanick has stated publicly that, "I don't understand regulators...

They are incredibly sensitive to what is in the public view. But if you only follow the
12

rules, they will never let you make the city a better place." Uber attempts to spin any
13

criticism as "anti-technology" and is willing to say whatever it needs to at any given
1-1

moment to achieve Uber's economic goals. For example, in New York, Uber has
15

represented to regulators that its system merely constitutes an advance reservation for livery vehicles, but, when Uber wanted to expand to taxis, it took the inconsistent position that Uber's system is a virtual hail. Ultimately, Uber was forced to shut down
its yellow cab hailing service in New York.

16

17

IS

19

PARTIES
20

4.

Plaintiff Leonid Goncharov is a licensed taxicab driver, and has so acted

21

continuously in the City and County of San Francisco for the last eight (8) years, and has

22

operated through a medallion issued to Luxor Cabs, Inc. for the last seven (7) years.
5. Plaintiff Mohammed Eddine is a licensed taxicab driver, and has so acted

23

24

continuously in the City and County of San Francisco for the last fifteen (15) years, and
operates through a medallion issued to Luxor Cabs, Inc. 6. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing

25

26

27

under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the City

28

and County of San Francisco. State of California. Uber Technologies, Inc. has operated

Class Action Complaint

in the City under the trade name "UberCab," and currently operates in the City under the
1

trade name "Uber."
2

6
3
4

Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued

herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and
5

capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that
6

each of such fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the
7

occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs' injuries as herein alleged were
8

proximately caused by such Defendants' acts.
9

7.
10 11

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times

herein mentioned, Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were the agents, servants,

employees, alter-egos, instrumentalities, predecessors-in-interest, representatives, co12

venturers, co-conspirators and partners of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the
13

things hereinafter alleged, were acting in the scope of their authority as such agents,
14

servants, employees, alter-egos, instrumentalities, predecessors-in-interest,
15

representatives, co-venturers, co-conspirators, and partners andwith the permission and
consent of their Co-Defendants and as such share liability with each other with respect

16

17

to said matters complained of herein. Plaintiffs shall hereinafter refer to Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and Defendant DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, as "Uber" in the
singular.

18

19

20

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
21

8.

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalves and on behalf of all

22

persons similarly situated. The class that Plaintiffs represent is composed of taxicab
drivers duly licensed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

23

24

(hereinafter "SFMTA"), and who have been operating as such at any time during the period from at least March 30, 2010, through the present. The persons in this class are
so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and that the disposition
of their claims in a class action rather than in individual actions will benefit the parties

25

26

27

28

and the Court. Furthermore, because the economic damages suffered by the individual

3

Class Action Complaint

/^Mf\

1

Plaintiff Class members may be relatively modest, albeit significant, compared to the

expense and burden of individual litigation, it would be impracticable for members of
2

said Plaintiff Class to seek redress individually for the wrongful conduct alleged herein.
3

9.
4

As of September 29, 2011, there were approximately 1,494 medallions

issued to the various taxi-cab companies who operate in the City and County of San
5

Francisco. Each medallion authorizes the operation of one taxicab, and a taxicab may
6

not legally operate in the City and County of San Francisco without a validly issued taxi
7

medallion license. The exact size of the Plaintiff Class, and the identity of the members
8

of the class are ascertainable from the business records of the various taxicab companies
9

which operate in the City and County of San Francisco. There will be no undue
10

difficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action. Indeed, Uber has access
11

to millions of dollars of seed money to defend itself and to financially overpower the
12

Plaintiffs if they are forced to bring individual actions against DefendantUber. It has
13

been reported that Uber raised close to $50 million in financing from such heavy hitters
14

as Menlo Ventures, Jeff Bezos/Amazon, Goldman Sachs and Benchmark Capital, to
15

name a few. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/10/16/uber-closes16

yellow-taxi-cab-service-in-new-york-city, as well as
17

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 l-12-07//tech/30484347_l_uber-works-mobiletechnology-techcrunch#ixzz29zYT3md.

18

19

10.

The prosecution of individual remedies by members of the Plaintiff Class

20

could tend to establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Uber and to result in the
21

impairment of class members' rights and the disposition of their interests through
actions to which they were not parties. Moreover, questions of law and fact common to
the Plaintiff Class exist that predominate over questions affecting only individual members, the claims asserted herein are typical of the claims of the members of the Plaintiff Class as described in this Complaint, the claims arise from the same course of
unlawful conduct by Uber, and the relief sought is common.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Class Action Complaint

1

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2

11.

The California Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter "CPUC") licenses

and regulates charter-party carriers for-hire vehicles on a Statewide basis. A charter3

party carrier includes "limousines," which are sometimes referred to in the vernacular as
4

"Black Cars," See §5371.4(i) of the California Public Utilities Code. The applicable
5

statutes and regulations preclude as a matter of law the use of a limousine bearing a
6

permit from the CPUC from performing taxicab functions in the City. For example, a
7

Black Car must provide prearranged service, including the maintenance of a waybill, and
8

may not have meters or roof lights so as to distinguish these vehicles from those that can
9

respond to "on demand" street hail service. Thus, pursuant to Public Utilities Code
10

§5351, et seq., a CPUC authorized limousine or Black Car is not permitted to engage in
11

taxicab transportation service, which must be regulated by the City.
12

12.
13 14

Uber, which holds itself out to the public, and acts as a transportation

company using "partner" drivers of Black Cars and other types of vehicles, is not licensed as a charter party carrier by the CPUP for any type of service.
15

13.
16
17

In San Francisco, the SFMTA is responsible for the regulation of taxicabs

within the City. In order to ensure that the public has access to a safe and uniform

means of vehicle-for-hire transportation with respect to both the licensing and regulation
18

of taxicabs, the SFMTA has developed a regulatory scheme to protect the riding public.
19

In order to drive or operate a taxicab in the City, one must obtain a permit. See San
20

Francisco Transportation Code §1105(a)(1) ("SF Code").
21

14.
22 23

Pursuant to the SF Code, a taxi means a vehicle operated pursuant to a Taxi

Medallion or Ramp Taxi Medallion (permit issued by the SFMTA to operate a particular

taxi vehicle that is specially adapted with access for wheelchair users), that is legally authorized to pick up passengers within the City, with or without prearrangement, of a distinctive color or colors and which is operated at rates per mile or upon a waiting-time basis, or both, as measured by a Taximeter, and which is used for the transportation of

24

25

26

27

passengers for hire over and along the public streets, not over a defined route, but as to

28

Class Action Complaint

the route and destination, in accordance with and under the direction of the passenger or
1

person hiring such vehicle. SF Code §1102(jjj) and (111).
2

15.
3
4

As described above, the SF Code also regulates taxi drivers in the conduct

of their operation of taxies within its jurisdiction. For example, requirements imposed
on drivers of taxicabs by the SF Code include, but are not limited to:
5


6
7

Section 1108 (e)(1), provides in pertinentpart that a "Driver shall not

refuse, or direct or permit the refusal, of prospective passengers in any place within the

City for transportation to any other place in the City ... if the prospective passengers
8

present themselves for transportation in a clean, coherent, safe and orderly manner and
9

for a lawful purpose, and the Driver has sufficient time before the end of his or her shift;'
10


11 12

Section 1108 (e)(2), requires the driver to "transport a passenger's luggage,

wheelchair or other mobility device ... that can be transported within the confines of the
vehicle's trunk and/or passenger areas;"
13


14
15

Section 1108(e)(3), provides that a driver may not refuse to transport a

person with a physical disability in the front seatif necessary to accommodate the
passenger's physical disability;
16

Section 1108(e)(16), provides that a driver shall not add a tip to a fare

17

unless expressly and voluntarily offered by the passenger, and is forbidden from
demanding, requesting, implying, assuming or otherwise suggesting that he should
receive any amount in excess of the authorized fare;

18

19

20

• •

Section 1108(e)(19), requires the driver to carry sufficient cash to make Section 1108(e)(35),(36), requires that the driver accept a paratransit debit

21

change for $20.00;

22

23

card associated with the paratransit program, which provides transit services for disabled
individuals.

24

25

Section 1113(c)(l)(A)(B) and (c)(2), requires that all taxis have the vehicle

26

number positioned in particular places on the taxicab, and the words "San Francisco
Taxicab" must appear on the each taxicab at designated places, and further identifying
. requirements are set forth at §1103(c)(3)-(8) and at (d)(l),(2);

27

28

Class Action Complaint

Section 1113(00X2). requires that taximeters must have a current and

valid seal from the Department of Public Health Weights and Measures and all such
taximeters must meet the approval of the SFMTA.
3


4 5

Section 1113(j)(2)(A),(B), mandates that all taxis and ramp taxis must be

equipped with a working top light containing a light or lights permanently attached to
the roofof the cab containing the words "Taxicab" or "Taxi," and the top light must be
6

illuminated at all times except when the vehicle is engaged in transporting a passenger;
7


8 9

Section 1113(m)(l), provides that all taxis and ramp taxis must be Section 1119(a)-(e), sets forth the procedure for imposing administrative

equipped with an operational security camera manufactured after December 31, 2006;

lu

enforcement by the SFMTA against those who are not permit holders; and,
11

Section 1124(a),(b), sets forth the fares that taxis and ramp taxis can charge

12

their passengers.
13

16.

As per its website, Uber markets itself to the public as an "elite" public

14

transportation company that provides through its "partner drivers" taxi-like on-demand
services to consumers through the use ofa GPS enabled smartphone application. In fact,
Uber is not licensed for any type of service either as a limousine service by the CPUC or

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

as a taxi company by the SFMTA. Uber admits it is operating as a taxi service in San Francisco, even though Uber is not licensed by the SFMTA to do so. Uber utilizes Black Car and gypsy vehicle drivers to perform as taxicab drivers, and thus requires its Black Car drivers to follow procedures in violation of SF Code. Uber's Black Car drivers pick up fares by street hail or e-hail in violation ofSFMTA rules. Uber is not
licensed by the SFMTA to offer any taxi related service whatsoever.

22

23

17.

Furthermore, by written contract between Uber and its "partnered" Black

24

Car drivers, such drivers are required to operate in violation ofthe SF Code, as set forth

25 26

27

in pertinent part, supra. On Uber's website (www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco), Uber represents that, in San Francisco, it provides "UberX" vehicles, which are a cheaper Black Car option and seat up to four (4) people; a classic black sedan, which is Uber's
default option and also seats up to four (4) people; and, SUV vehicles, which seat up to

28

7

Class Action Complaint

1

six (6) people. Indeed, the website invites members of the public to: "Hop into the
sleek Black Car, tell the driver your destination, and you'll be on your way." The

2

website also represents that: "Uber is your on-demand private driver. Request a ride at
3

any time using our iphone and Android apps or from rn.uber.com." The website
4

additionally states that: "After the ride, Uber will automatically charge the credit card
5

you have on file. There's no need to hand your driver any payment, and the tip is
6

included. Of course, drivers always appreciate a 'thank you.'" Thus, Uber is utilizing
7

Black Cars without meeting any of the basic requirements of any controlling regulatory
8

agency. Further, on information and belief, Uber also utilizes "gypsy" vehicles, owned
9

by Uber's "partners," which do not and cannot qualify even as "limousines" or "Black
10

Cars" pursuant to CPUC regulations. These gypsy vehicles are employed as functioning
11

taxicabs without submitting to regulatory oversight by any governmental regulatory
12

agency whatsoever.
13

18.
14 15

The Uber website also sets forth its pricing information with respect to each

of these vehicles, that starts with a basic fare and then adds a per-mile rate within San

Francisco, a per-mile rate outside of San Francisco, a per-minute rate, a minimum fare,
16

as well as a cancellation fee. Uber's website also sets forth flat rates for certain
17

destinations, such as a trip between San Francisco and the San Francisco International
18

Airport, and between San Francisco and the Oakland Airport. The consumer can only
19

pay by credit card. The consumer is not permitted to pay in cash as required by the SF
20

Code. Uber Black Cars acting as taxicabs promulgate fares which are measured
21

through a smartphone application, which utilizes GPS enabled iphones in Black Cars or

22

gypsy cars to determine distance and fares, in direct violation of the SF Code since the
GPS devices act as illegal meters for taxi services. Accordingly, the rates charged by
Uber do not correspond with the provisions of the SF Code, unfairly competes with the

23

24

25

governmentally regulated Plaintiff Class and are not measured pursuant to an approved
taximeter as required by the SF Code. The illegal meters also violate the CPUC
regulations.

26

27

28

8

Class Action Complaint

n
19. Even though Uber functions, in all respects, as a taxicab company, it

claims that it is not a transportation company for the purpose of avoiding compliance

with any regulatory agencies, including the SFMTA and the CPUC. For example, Uber does not require that its drivers accept fares to underserved areas of San Francisco, that
4

its drivers provide service to disabled individuals, and that its vehicles contain the
5

identifying information required (such as a top light and words identifying the vehicles
6

as taxicabs). In fact, Uber is indeed a taxi company as:
7


8

Uber receives requests for taxi services from a customer; Uber transmits (dispatches) this request for taxi service to an independent


9 10

"partner" driver in a Black Car with whom Uber has a written contract for service and
revenue sharing; and,
11


12
13

The "partner" driver proceeds to service the requested transportation from

the customer.

Thus, Uber provides the same service as a taxicab company through its drivers,
14

while evading any responsibility for the requirements imposed on drivers of taxicabs and
15

ramp taxis as well as on taxicab companies.
16

20.
17

Uber's business model is built upon deceiving the public, ignoring public

safety regulations, circumventing legally established rates and pricing models, dodging
18

taxes and fees imposed on other public transportation providers, and shifting all risks and
19

liability to others. In fact, Uber's widely stated mission is to "disrupt" the established
20

regulated taxi operations and substitute a mobile-application-based service free of any
21

regulations governing public transportation services.
22

21.
23 24

Uber has intentionally and knowingly encouraged Uber Black Car drivers

to unlawfully compete with properly licensed taxicab drivers for passengers, and to provide taxicab services in direct violation of the SF Code.

25

22.

Uber has engaged, and continues to engage, in unlawful business practices

26

that are illegal per se and that directly impact the legitimate taxicab drivers. While Uber's conduct misleads the passenger public, it significantly interferes with the business

27

28

of the legally authorized taxicab drivers who make up the Plaintiff Class by unfairly

Class Action Complaint

competing with said drivers. Simply stated, Uber's "partner" drivers, who are operating
1

without restriction, are taking passengers, and thus income, away from legally sanctioned
2

taxicab drivers who are literally playing by the rules. Moreover, Plaintiffs have suffered,
3

and continue to suffer, unproductive taxi lease expenses, increased taxi fuel expenditures,
4

and other related out-of-pocket costs, as a direct and proximate result of Uber's illegal
5

conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, injuries in fact as
6

a direct and proximate result of Uber's illegal conduct.
7

23.
8 9

Plaintiffs shall seek an award of damages as set forth, infra, as well as an

injunction pursuant to Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq., seeking to

prohibit Uber from conducting an unlawful business in violation of the Public Utilities
10

Code and of the SF Code.
11

24.
12

Plaintiffs shall seek an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to a

private attorney general theory pursuantto Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, or through
13

the common fund or substantial benefit theories as established by the Courts of this
14

State.
15

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16

UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES/UNFAIR COMPETITION
17

(Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.)
18

25.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive of

19

this Complaint, and make them a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 26. As set forth, supra, Uber has engaged, and continues to engage, in unlawful

20

21

business practices that are illegal per se. While Uber's conduct misleads the passenger

22

public, it significantly interferes with the business of the legally authorized taxicab
drivers who make up the Plaintiff Class. That is, Uber has been, and is currently,

23

24

engaged in unfair competition within the meaning of Business and Professions Code
§17200, et seq, and Plaintiffs have suffered injuries in fact, including but not limited to a
loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures as a direct and proximate result of Uber's

25

26

27

unpermitted taxi service in the City. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Uber will
continue to commit those acts unless the Court orders Uber to cease and desist.

28

10

Class Action Complaint

1

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
3

27.
4
5

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive of

this Complaint, and make them a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 28.
6 7

Uber is intentionally interfering with the economic relationship between

Plaintiffs and the passenger public through its illegal acts as set forth, supra. Indeed,
Uber's widely stated mission is to "disrupt" the established regulated taxi operations and
8

substitute a mobile-application-based service without regard to any regulations governing
9

public transportation services. Rather, Uber operates outside of the law.
10

29.
11

As a proximate result of Uber's wrongful and illegal conduct, Plaintiffs

have suffered damages in an amount according to proof.
12

30.
13
14

The aforementioned acts of Uber were willful, oppressive and malicious.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages. 31.
15 16

Further, unless restrained, Uber will continue to operate outside of the law,

and interfere with Plaintiffs' economic relationships with its passengers to Plaintiffs'

great and irreparable injury, for which damages would not afford adequate relief. Thus,
17

Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction to stop Uber's unlawful acts as set forth, supra.
18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
20

ACCOUNTING
21

32.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 30, inclusive of

22

this Complaint, and make them a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
33. The amount of Plaintiff s damages cannot be assessed or ascertained unless

23

24

and until there is an accounting of Uber's receipts and disbursements with respect to its
operations in the City and County of San Francisco. 34. Plaintiffs did not demand an accounting considering Uber's highly public

25

26

27

statements about its views on regulations. As Uber believes that it is above the law, any
such demand would have been futile.

28

Class Action Complaint

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
1

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2

DECLARATORY RELIEF
3

35.
4 5

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 inclusive of this
An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and

Complaint, and make them a part hereofas if fully set forth herein.
36.
6
7

Uber concerning their respective rights and duties. On the one hand, Plaintiffs contend
that Uber is intentionally, unlawfully and unfairly competing with Plaintiffs by the use of
8

Black Cars as illegal taxicabs in derogation of the SF Code, and that Uber is operating as
9

a taxicab company without any of the restrictions that govern taxicab drivers (as well as
10

taxicab companies). On the other hand, Uber denies that it is a taxicab company subject
11

to the SF Code or any other regulations applicable to limousines or Black Cars.
12

37.
13
14

A judicial determination is necessary and appropriate at this time under the

circumstances in that declaratory relief would have the practical effect of informing the

parties' future conduct and by removing the financial burden being caused by the
unsettled state of affairs.

15

16

38.

Plaintiffs have experienced damages as the result of the illegality of Uber's

17

actions as such actions impair and interfere with Plaintiffs' business.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

18

19

20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21

22

1.

For a permanent injunction enjoining Uber, its agents, servants, and

23

employees, and all persons acting under or in concert with them, to cease and desist from
the following acts:

24

25

a.
Class,

Utilizing BlackCars as taxicabs in direct competition with Plaintiff
Utilizing any other unlicensed or nonpermitted vehicles in direct

26

27

b.
Plaintiff Class.

28

12

Class Action Complaint

/SMfcH

2.
1

For the payment of the plaintiffs attorney's fees under one of the theories
For costs of suit herein incurred; and

set forth above;
2

3.
3

4.
4 5

For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1.
6

For damages according to proof;
For exemplary and punitive damages;

2.
7

3.
8
9

For an Order requiring Uber to show cause, if any it has, why it shouldnot

be enjoined as set forth below, during the pendency of this action; 4.
10
11

For a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, each enjoining For the payment of the Plaintiffs attorney's fees under one of the theories

Uber from Utilizing Black Cars as taxicabs in direct competition with Plaintiff Class; 5.
12

set forth above;
13

6.
14

For their costs incurred; and

7.
15 16

For any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1.

For an accounting of all receipts and disbursements of Uber from

17

September 8, 2010 to the present;
18

2.

For paymentover to Plaintiffs of the amount due from Uber as a result of

19

the accounting as damages for the unlawful competition;
3. For interest thereon;

20

21

4.
forth above;

For the payment of Plaintiffs' attorneys fees under one of the theories set

22

23

5.

For their costs incurred; and

24

6.

For any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

25

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26

1.

For a declaration that Uber is in violation of the SF Code by utilizing Black

27

Cars as taxicabs in direct competition with duly licensed taxicab drivers;
2. For damages according to proof;

28

13

Class Action Complaint

3.

For a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, each enjoining

Uber from Utilizing Black Cars as taxicabs in direct competition with Plaintiff Class;
4.
forth above; 5. For their costs incurred; and

For the payment of Plaintiffs' attorneys fees under one of the theories set

6.

For any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

DATED: November 9, 2012

LAW OFFICE OE^GARY P. OSWALD

GAF&lPrOSWALD, Attorney for
Plaintiff Class

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

Class Action Complaint

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful